Nada Nahhas - Page 18

                                       - 17 -                                         
          marital dissolution proceeding that the amounts were not taxable.           
          Reliance on an attorney may relieve a taxpayer from the accuracy-           
          related penalty where the taxpayer’s reliance is reasonable.                
          Stolz v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-404.  However, in this               
          case, petitioner’s attorney did not draft the temporary order to            
          provide that the amount for support or temporary maintenance was            
          not includable in her income, and therefore, these facts do not             
          support reasonable cause.  Petitioner’s reliance on the divorce             
          attorney also does not constitute reasonable cause, as she failed           
          to show that the attorney was skilled or knowledgeable in the tax           
          consequences of the divorce proceeding.  Therefore, we sustain              
          respondent’s determination of the penalty under section 6662(a)             
          and (b)(1) for taxable year 2002.                                           
               Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case               

                                                  Decision will be entered            
                                             under Rule 155.                          

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  

Last modified: May 25, 2011